State v. Charleston

• Decision Date: 14 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 78811-6-I,78811-6-I
• Citation: State v. Charleston, No. 78811-6-I (Wash. App. Sep 14, 2020)
• Parties: STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. STANLEY OMAR CHARLESTON, Appellant.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. STANLEY OMAR CHARLESTON, Appellant.

No. 78811-6-I

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

September 14, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ANDRUS, A.C.J. - Stanley Charleston appeals his convictions and sentence for two counts of second degree assault and one count of unlawful imprisonment stemming from events that occurred on October 8, 2017, while Charleston was experiencing a drug-induced psychotic episode.Charleston argues that the trial court erred when it denied Charleston's motion to proceed pro se and when it refused to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and the inferior degree offense of fourth degree assault.He further contends his convictions violate the prohibition on double jeopardy.In a Statement of Additional Grounds, Charleston also maintains that the court violated his speedy trial rights.

We conclude the trial court did not err here and affirm Charleston's convictions and sentence.

FACTS

In the early hours of October 8, 2017, Sarah¹ returned to a friend's first-floor apartment at Ninth Avenue and Marion Street on First Hill in Seattle.As Sarah inserted the key into the exterior door lock, a man, later identified as Charleston, ran at her, grabbed her by her hair, threw her to the ground, and began striking her repeatedly with an aluminum broom handle.When Charleston screamed at her, Sarah could not understand anything he said.

Just before the attack, around 2 a.m., James finished a music gig at a nearby restaurant and walked to his parked car.He saw Charleston chasing a man down the sidewalk while waving some type of a stick in the air.When James approached his car, he saw Charleston return, enter an apartment building, and then attack Sarah.He saw Charleston, who was yelling nonsensically, drag Sarah outside and beat her with a stick around a dozen times.

James decided to intervene because the conduct was "over the top violent" and because Charleston was "whaling on this woman."He first called the police and then yelled at Charleston to stop.James expected Charleston to flee, but Charleston surprisingly charged him and hit him in the face with a stick "a couple times."James tackled Charleston to the ground, and another man passing by helped him subdue Charleston until police arrived.

Officer Elliott Averett was the first officer to respond.He saw two men holding Charleston down and also noticed a pair of scissors and a bent, lightweight, aluminum broom handle nearby.He kicked the possible weaponsaway from everyone's reach.Officer Averett tried to speak to Charleston, but Charleston "was pretty incoherent."Instead of answering the officer's request for identification, Charleston said "something about being a light bearer" and "yell[ed] out Islamic religious references."

The police initially handcuffed all three men until James explained what had happened.After determining that Charleston was the likely assailant, the officers arrested him.Officer Averett testified that because of Charleston's incoherence and demeanor, he thought Charleston was mentally ill, high, or both.

Firefighter EMT Carol Wisman evaluated Charleston for injuries while he sat handcuffed in the back seat of the police vehicle.She too thought Charleston appeared high.Wisman believed his mental status was altered or he was having a behavioral or psychiatric episode.Wisman determined Charleston was likely high because of her experience with "many, many, many"people under the influence of drugs.

Officer Travis Jordon arrived on the scene and heard Sarah screaming for help at the doorway of her apartment building.He attended to Sarah while the other officers interacted with the three men on the street.He saw she was bleeding from her head.Sarah told Officer Jordon she had been attacked by a stranger while inserting the key into the deadbolt of the building's front door.Jordon noticed the key still inside the deadbolt, bent.

As a result of the attack, Sarah suffered a one-inch laceration to her scalp.A CAT² scan revealed that Sarah also had a hematoma, or a collection of bloodunder the scalp.Dr. Hess decided that hematoma treatment would be unnecessarily invasive and closed the cut to her scalp with two to three staples that remained in place for two weeks.In addition to these injuries, Sarah had bruises to the back of her shoulders, her side, and the back of her head where Charleston had pulled her hair, making it impossible for her to sleep well for three days.

She also sustained an injury to her right hand.Sarah testified that when she arrived at the hospital, her hand was so swollen that the doctors could not perform an X ray and had to cut her rings off her fingers.The doctor who attended to her in the emergency room, Dr. Jeremy Hess, could not determine if any bones were broken.As a precaution, Dr. Hess put Sarah's hand in a splint and recommended she follow up with her personal physician to rule out any fracture.Sarah had to keep the splint on her hand for two weeks, making her dependent on others to assist her to eat, bathe, and dress.

Sarah also testified that she was so afraid during the assault that she lost control of her bowels and defecated on herself.Dr. Thomas Cherry, Sarah's primary care provider, testified that such bowel incontinence is not uncommon when someone experiences a severe trauma because their entire nervous system "is just kind of on override."He opined that her loss of bowel control under such circumstances is the loss of the function of a bodily organ.

James suffered a golf ball-sized lump on his head, a loose tooth, a cut on his lip that required stitches, and a fractured ankle.Dr. William Lemley, the radiologist who reviewed James's X rays, diagnosed a break in the fibula justbelow the mid-lower leg, extending down to the ankle joint.James used crutches for two weeks and had his ankle immobilized in a boot for another six weeks.

The State charged Charleston with first degree burglary, assault in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment relating to the attack of Sarah and second degree assault relating to the attack of James.At trial, Sarah and James testified about the attacks and their resultant injuries.The jury also heard testimony from law enforcement officers who were present on the scene and from medical professionals who participated in treating Sarah and James after the assaults.Charleston testified in his defense, as did forensic psychiatrist Dr. Mark McClung.

The jury acquitted Charleston of first degree burglary but found him guilty of second degree assault of James and second degree assault and unlawful imprisonment of Sarah.In a second phase of the trial, the jury found Charleston had committed these crimes shortly after being released from incarceration.

The court imposed an exceptional sentence based on the aggravating factor of "rapid recidivism," under RCW 9.94A.535(3)(t).The court sentenced Charleston to a total of 35 months' confinement: 15 months for the assault of James, 20 months for the assault of Sarah, and 9 months for the unlawful imprisonment of Sarah.It ordered the two assault counts to run consecutively to one another, with the unlawful imprisonment count running concurrently with the second assault count.

Charleston appeals his convictions and sentence.Charleston makes several arguments on appeal.First, he argues that he was deprived of hisconstitutional right to represent himself.Second, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication and on the inferior degree offense of fourth degree assault.Third, he argues that his convictions for assault and unlawful imprisonment of Sarah violate the prohibitions on double jeopardy.Finally, Charleston submitted a Statement of Additional Grounds (SAG) in which he argues that his speedy trial rights were violated when the trial court granted three continuances in May 2018 and failed to commence his trial until after the speedy trial deadline expired.We address each argument in turn.

ANALYSIS

1.Charleston's Self-Representation Request

Charleston first argues the trial court deprived him of his constitutional right to self-representation.We disagree because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Charleston did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself.

"The United States Supreme Court recognizes a constitutional right of criminal defendants to waive assistance of counsel and to represent themselves at trial."State v. DeWeese, 117 Wn.2d 369, 375, 816 P.2d 1(1991)."[A]court cannot force a defendant to accept counsel if the defendant wants to conduct his or her own defense, as the Sixth Amendment grants defendants the right to make a personal defense with or without the assistance of an attorney."Id.;see alsoFaretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562(1975).

Because a request to proceed pro se involves the waiver of a constitutional right, namely the right to counsel, "appellate courts have regularly and properly reviewed denials of requests for pro se status under an abuse of discretion standard."State v. Madsen, 168 Wn.2d 496, 504, 229 P.3d 714(2010)."The grounds that allow a court to deny a defendant the right to self-representation are limited to a finding that the defendant's request is equivocal, untimely, involuntary, or made without a general understanding of the consequences."Id. at 504-05."A court may not deny a motion for self-representation based on grounds that self-representation would be detrimental to the defendant's ability to present his case or concerns that courtroom proceedings will be less efficient and orderly than if the defendant were represented by counsel."Id. at 505."Similarly, concern regarding a defendant's competency alone is insufficient; if the court doubts the defendant's competency, the necessary course is to order a competency review."Id.An appellate court"...